At 06:37 PM 9/10/2001, Allison Mankin wrote:
> > At 01:33 PM 9/10/2001, Allison Mankin wrote:
> > >Why not use this Last Call discussion
> > >to bring out the issues of SOAP directly over TCP rather over
> > >BEEP
> > The most simple and direct answer to your question is that the
> > specification that has been put forward is for using BEEP, not TCP.
> >
>
>You mistake my intent in the question - I think this discussion
>is serving to increase community awareness of the valuable
>functions of BEEP, the whole range of them, of which I mentioned
>only one, multiplexing.
Ahh. Thanks for the clarification.
I guess the problem with using a Last Call as a teaching event is that
postings on the Last Call thread might be mistaken for negative sentiment
about the specification, rather than as demonstrations of interest in
learning more about the technology.
It is further confused by the fact that the pedagogy, in this case, is for
a related technology, rather than the specification currently under discussion.
Note that the postings have, in fact, been in the form of challenges,
albeit absent any technical criticism of the specification at hand. Hence
my concern about serving ancillary agendas, such as pedagogy.
> > Would it make sense to discuss IP over PPP when a specification for IP
> over
> > ATM were being put forward?
>
>Purely with respect to the architecture discussion, yes -
>there should be commonalities and consistency of the big
>picture.
I agree. That's why we chose to make the beep multiplexing mechanism
identical to the tcp mechanism...
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
